how do y'all feel about this?

I am currently completing a book called FANZINES (Thames & Hudson) and have included the cover of List / Goodbye, Baltimore, no. 12 (fall 2008), fully credited in the book.

My book looks at the history of fanzines in a general overview of UK and USA-based self-publishing. As a good example of an interesting contemporary personal zine it would be remiss not to include it in any history of fanzines. The book is due out in September and I hope this will establish the importance of this form of self-publishing.

I do hope this is okay.Yours sincerely,Prof Teal TriggsUniversity of the Arts London"

Poor form right? I know a lot of zinesters don't care about their things being reproduced or used, and I actually don't mind at all for it to be included, but it seems like asking ahead of time would be the right thing to do, right? Especially for a book?

Replies to This Discussion

I'm missing your logic here, how is writing a book about zines now mean the zine scene is totally dead? Zine books were published throughout the past thirty years and were never about the scene being over. In regards to riot grrl, much like punk, I think it's awesome to document and write about it's early years, I don't see how that would discount anything going on today. I was recently contacted by an organization putting on a photo exhibit on the '90s riot grrrl movement (I took a bunch of photos at Bikini Kill, Tribe 8 and other shows back in the day), I think of that similarly as awesome.

ps- I totally remember Creep zine, I used to trade issues with him!

False Start Distro said:

I haven't read the whole thread, but I've been keeping up with this issue a little bit. I hadn't actually seen the book until this weekend, when I found it at a local bookstore.

Strangely, the first page I flipped to had the cover of Creep #10 on it -- my boyfriend's college friend's zine he did when he was a teenager/early 20's that he showed to us when we were visiting him in Olympia. Of course, no credit to him in the book, and there's no way in hell that he knew about it.

I'm really bummed out that Triggs handled things the way she did. It's such a violation of so many things. It also bothers me that these tomes about riot grrrl and zines, etc. are coming out now like these things are totally dead and in the past. Also, a selfish bummer -- that book is printed really nicely, and had Triggs not been such an idiot, I totally would have bought it.

I totally think it's awesome to document these things too, don't get me wrong! I guess I just have been talking to a lot of people lately who are around my age (23) who don't see zines as a medium that's still relevant and evolving because of these "let's talk about the 90's" books that are coming out now. Lots of people I know feel like they "missed out", when that's not true at all. That might just be an experience specific to my age group and location though...it's probably not a common response to these books across the board.

Anyway, Creep was such a cool zine! Toby busted out his old copies for me when we were staying at his place. I wish he had more copies so I could have taken one home to read more thoroughly!

Dan 10things said:

I'm missing your logic here, how is writing a book about zines now mean the zine scene is totally dead? Zine books were published throughout the past thirty years and were never about the scene being over. In regards to riot grrl, much like punk, I think it's awesome to document and write about it's early years, I don't see how that would discount anything going on today. I was recently contacted by an organization putting on a photo exhibit on the '90s riot grrrl movement (I took a bunch of photos at Bikini Kill, Tribe 8 and other shows back in the day), I think of that similarly as awesome.

ps- I totally remember Creep zine, I used to trade issues with him!

False Start Distro said:

I haven't read the whole thread, but I've been keeping up with this issue a little bit. I hadn't actually seen the book until this weekend, when I found it at a local bookstore.

Strangely, the first page I flipped to had the cover of Creep #10 on it -- my boyfriend's college friend's zine he did when he was a teenager/early 20's that he showed to us when we were visiting him in Olympia. Of course, no credit to him in the book, and there's no way in hell that he knew about it.

I'm really bummed out that Triggs handled things the way she did. It's such a violation of so many things. It also bothers me that these tomes about riot grrrl and zines, etc. are coming out now like these things are totally dead and in the past. Also, a selfish bummer -- that book is printed really nicely, and had Triggs not been such an idiot, I totally would have bought it.

You folks do understand that due to Triggs horrible research methods that there are not only zines included that she did not have permission to include... but outright INCORRECT information about zines, zine writers, festivals, etc.

We should be HAPPY someone ripped us off? That's like saying we should be happy someone emptied out our apartment before we got home, so our things could be admired by other people.

Sorry---this is copyright violation. I would feel completely ripped off if mine were in there. Fortunately they aren't, but I've had original soft sculpture designs stolen three times, one by a store who sent the design to China and had 5,000 dolls produced. It cost me $$$ to get a copyright lawyer and get my copyright honored. All the payment I got from the guy basically went to paying the lawyer.

Theft is theft.

Joseph Delgado said:

I think those zine publishers who have had their work published in this new book should be happy that they are getting some critical exposure; i

My stories and artwork are copyrighted, I did shift to a 'mainstream'. My rip offs were in my original soft sculpture toys, also copyrighted designs. The law upheld those.

I'm confused about your thought that 'collecting' and then officially publishing in a book that is bought by people around the world is not theft. It's the main definition of copyright infringement. Once someone produces something for money, that takes it away from any honoring of previous work and turns it into income. A totally different story. As others pointed out, the person COULD have made some attempt to get an ok from the original owners of the work.

Joseph Delgado said:

Then you need to shift your practice from an independent label to a more mainstream label then if your so concerned about your zines being stolen......you are equating documentation with theft...

Every single book out there that 'catalogs' works gives credit in the back index to both the places they found the works, who wrote the works, which estate holds copyright to the works, etc. That's why I'm surprised a publisher went ahead and printed the book without having her do that service. Book advances benefit the writer to the tune of $5,000 for any book, with royalties tacked onto that once the books sell past a certain point. If her passion was so great she'd have done at least minimal work to contact the community and ask.

When did the community establish rules? It's worldwide. A small community of any sort benefits from the rules already in place whether they voted for them or not. It's one thing for a small community to exchange and trade, it's among themsleves and limited. Once it hits a bookstore--and thereby the publisher, warehousing, ISBN numbers etc., it's a commercial venture not a hobby or small community thing. Giving credit where credit is due was never done. That's what I take issue with. It's not like everyone she 'borrowed' from has died.

Joseph Delgado said:

But you are assuming again the Triggs' attempt was to profit off the backs of the zine writers...what if her attempt was simply to catalogue the work?

Karen Paulie, Care and Feeding of Spinning Wheels. Ciro Marchetti with his tarot deck/book set. Writer's publication sites (best selling NY times books bulletin board). A personal friend currently shopping her book around to publishers. Writers Digest agent articles in the past Nov.-Dec. issues. Sure, it's negotiable, but the advances are still there.

Quibble all you want, money is being made when something goes through the standard publisher sites and is offered to the public.

The whole thread here is about how WE feel about this. I stated my views and reasons. She dropped the ball and neglected an important part. I'm not argueing the validity of how I feel.

Joseph Delgado said:

I wonder where you get your numbers, cause i have never received such a generous advance even as a winner of a principal award via a major publisher....and i know from experience that royalties are bracketed based on the number of books sold and at most many writers only get up to 50% royalties (based off wholesale price after publisher discount usually at 48 to 50% the face value after the advance payout was satisfied via sales) if they are even remotely lucky and only if they sell past a particular threshold and usually they only get about 8% royalties and their usual print runs are limited to 2000 these days...i know. You are again assuming that zinesters should follow these legal precedents that we have for the last thirty years purposely attacked via utilizing underground and radical means...for all we know Triggs total sales minus returns, minus damaged shipments, minus fees and expenses may only be a handful, poor royalties, and for all we know her advance was a measly 1000 to 2000 dollars since she isnt a celebrity or anything or self-help book writer....i digress...the point is that zines shouldnt be held to the same industry standards...rather their existence is a manifestation or reactions against such 'community' established rules and regulations...you make a dangerous assumption that all oblige such rules...I still hold Triggs work is important, albeit lacking in variety, and those included should be honored that ten or twenty years from now, some young person will come along flip open a tattered copy and be inspired...isnt that what the nature of creativity is about? rather than worrying about the trivalities of money....

How are you ripped off? And it absolutely is not a copyright violation, read up on copyright law. It's perfectly OK to feature a cover or a page or two from a book/zine/magazine/record album/etc. when you are writing about them in a review, historical or scene type of book. It happens all the time! This book is like any other zine book except it's not as good as a bunch of them. But if you've read books like Zines volume 1 and 2 by ReSearch, Seth's Factsheet Five Reader, etc. they all featured covers or pages from zines and wrote about them, and the authors were not always notified. The same can be said for ZineWiki and Zine Libraries, fans of zines add them to these collections and cataloging. I suggest that anyone that seriously thinks that copyright laws were violated to talk with a lawyer (or pick up any other zine or music book published in the past 30 years).

I fully understand people thinking she did a poor job covering the zine community and got facts wrong, which was a similar feeling people got from the book American Hardcore about the hardcore scene. And maybe, like with American Hardcore, there will be a revised edition with all the corrections in a few more years. But I doubt it, I can't see very many people buying a book about zines today, my guess is the publisher loses a bunch of money on it. I just hate to see the complete lack of understanding of copyright and the weird expectations and sense of entitlement people putting out zines today have. You publish, you create something for the world to read and see, it will get written about, reviewed, cataloged, and remembered. Well, if you're lucky.

I got into zine publishing through the punk scene in the late '80s. Back then it was "No rules!" Zines were the wild west of publishing. We violated copyright constantly, stole postage, scammed copies, and tried to print as many copies as possible as cheaply as possible. It was like the pirate radio of publishing. It's such a different world today in some ways, but in others, it's still the wild west of publishing and I hate to see it lose everything that makes it different from the mainstream press. Zinesters whining about copyright violation, who would have ever thought?

Elaine said:

We should be HAPPY someone ripped us off? That's like saying we should be happy someone emptied out our apartment before we got home, so our things could be admired by other people.

Sorry---this is copyright violation. I would feel completely ripped off if mine were in there. Fortunately they aren't, but I've had original soft sculpture designs stolen three times, one by a store who sent the design to China and had 5,000 dolls produced. It cost me $$$ to get a copyright lawyer and get my copyright honored. All the payment I got from the guy basically went to paying the lawyer.

Theft is theft.

Joseph Delgado said:

I think those zine publishers who have had their work published in this new book should be happy that they are getting some critical exposure; i

Her ONLY mistake? Okay.... she called Zine World an e-Zine. Is that not a mistake? A rather LARGE mistake?

Joseph Delgado said:

TRiggs only mistake is to assume that anarchist/feminist fanzines are the only zines being/ or have been made...her mistake was to focus on that subgenre rather than an expansive treatise on the varied styles and types of zines being produced.

You really are an idiot. If someone is publishing a BOOK that is supposed to have FACTS about zines.... you don't think those FACTS need to be correct?

Joseph Delgado said:

Not really, come on, Ive been in the zine world a long time and only heard of zine world roughly a year ago...perhaps she just assumed it was an e-zine since they do keep an updated web page...again assuming that all zinesters engage in conventional dialogue with things like zine world...there are many long time zinesters i trade with who never heard of zine world and we have been doing this for twenty years...what exactly is your point? Again people need to stop whining about such trivalities and enjoy the pleasure of being read by a wider audience perhaps outside of the 'zine universe.' Its as if many have forgotten the true nature of zine making, the wild visceral aspect, a type of protest against conventions...its sad that many have forgotten the legacy in which underground publication was founded...and it goes back deep into history...

NicoleIntrovert said:

Her ONLY mistake? Okay.... she called Zine World an e-Zine. Is that not a mistake? A rather LARGE mistake?

Joseph Delgado said:

TRiggs only mistake is to assume that anarchist/feminist fanzines are the only zines being/ or have been made...her mistake was to focus on that subgenre rather than an expansive treatise on the varied styles and types of zines being produced.

It's not trivial and it's not a discussion when others opinions are shot down.

Some people are fine with being 'read by a larger audience', others most definately are not. Trying to imply that everything here is kosher and ok pretty much says that anyone with a differing opinion isn't worth listening to. I thought it was allowed that a person can have their own opinion for their own reasons and not be nitpicked to death for having it.